A question concerning black holes

OccamsRazor04

VoidHawk

A black hole is an object — typically a collapsed star — whose gravity is so strong that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Since nothing is known to exceed the speed of light, nothing can escape from a black hole.

Does that indicate that an object within the gravity would be pulled faster than the speed of light? If not why not?
And If so, then FTL is possible.

No, it means an object would have to go FTL to escape. Nothing goes FTL. Nothing escapes (except for certain instances where the escape velocity is less than FTL). If FTL was possible then the black hole would not suck it in, it would escape, the fact nothing does is further proof FTL is impossible.

Since light cannot escape from a black hole, I would think the force of gravity (aka: the "speed of attraction") must be FTL...

reply to post by totallackey


Think of it instead as being at the bottom of a conical hole. You've got a handful of ball bearings. There will be a speed at which you throw a bearing at the top rim at which the bearing will clear the lip and land outside and not roll back in. That's the escape velocity. Any bearing thrown at a slower speed will hit the side and slide back. If you hum the bearing at the side, you can find speeds and angles where the bearing will spiral around the cone. That's an orbit.

But no matter what, to clear the top, it has to leave your hand at a certain speed. Slower and it will eventually end back up at the bottom.

The higher the walls, the faster you have to throw. Eventually, it can take so hard a throw that you'd have to throw it faster than the speed of light to get it over the lip. At that point, nothing can leave the hole.

It's not that the side has to be moving. It just has to be high. It's not running the ball bearing down and hauling it back actively, ir's a condition. Gravity is similar. It's not travelling after the objects it attracts, it's a condition of the space the objects are in.

reply to post by Jukiodone


The marble cannot be placed at a position of 3 coordinates? At any point along the journey?

In order to exist, I thought any one thing must be assigned a position...

reply to post by totallackey


I think you should take what Phoenix said but apply it to a sphere and not a cone. Conical shapes only exist at the surface of a field where it meets the other surface of a field.

You know how earth is always pictured with its magnetic field? Where the conical shape is at the magnetic fields' surface, or at the magnetic poles? Well that entire magnetic field and the spherical earth shape is how you should view a black hole. Then, your conical idea can become 2 spheres of force created by the force that a very dense spherical object creates - the force being thermoelectric convection - not gravity. I believe gravity is really a convection path of energy - like a pressure chamber created by the fields of output by a spherical shaped body's pressure output.

Think of a magnetic pole or a tornado or a whirlpool like the point where 2 spherical fields meet creating a cone... but the whirl pool effect itself is the 2 fields meeting point. That is, the vortex or cone is not your focal point, the focus is on the 2 spherical fields created by the dense convection path of the spherical mass. The fields are what draws things to the conical vortex...

If you would grant me the use of aether or strings and everything in reality just the motion of aether/strings byway of thermoelectric convection then I could almost explain the universe and all with in.

p.s. space-time is not real and space-fabric is the aether/strings/smallest form of structure.

edit again: Think of time as the evolution of all change that will occur. And you experience time relative to your rate of change to time. Like inertia, the faster you move, the less time or change you will be able to react to or observe/experience outside of your flow of change. This is why Einstein and the world thinks time is space. It's not though - time is the rate at which you react to change - change is happening all over the universe as absolute time but you are stuck in your own frame of time because you cannot react to what moves too slowly or too quickly for your observation of time... Space is a 3d plan, and again, space-fabric is aether/strings/most fundamental structure which cannot be destroyed.

Another example of the aether convection fields would be the way sol entraps planets within its outputs convection path. That is, we are not falling towards it on some crazy flat space blanket, we are trapped in its outputs convection path. What keeps us in orbit and not being pulled towards it is the pressurization of the output field. Where each planet's location should then be a output fields focal point or center of field.

Here are my questions about black holes. If a black hole is the remnant of a collapsing star, and that star was burning, and shedding mass (CMEs) ... didn't it already have enough mass to absorb light to begin with?

I've a lot of thoughts about black holes. I've a lot of thoughts about neutron stars. A lot of other people have too. I thought about postulating this in that thread about the myths of settled science. This forum seems more appropriate.

reply to post by Snarl


The mass has to be in a sufficiently small radius.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Another example of the aether convection fields would be the way sol entraps planets within its outputs convection path. That is, we are not falling towards it on some crazy flat space blanket, we are trapped in its outputs convection path. What keeps us in orbit and not being pulled towards it is the pressurization of the output field. Where each planet's location should then be a output fields focal point or center of field.

If I understand your writing correctly, then you are stating that gravity does not manifest itself the same way. It is inconsistent (i.e., what goes up must not always come down).

reply to post by Snarl


The size or volumetric area of a thing is going to be controlled by its own inter-convection paths and its outer convection paths expanse.

Think of it like an electron orbiting a proton. The electron becomes so compressed by other electrons pressing up against it that it has to push in on the proton causing collapse of the quarks within.

Keep repeating that over and over with other atoms until you have something so dense that a photon can't even escape the outermost atom's convective path (event horizon).

The only thing that will be able to escape is something with virtually no volume or area of its own... which is strings/aether/information. And those strings/aether/information force galaxies to be pressure locked within the convection path of the black hole's said output aether.

They must both take in something and output something if there is to be orbit. If not, everything would just sit in place or would have already been sucked into it.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Not to be argumentative, but to present an alternate point of view:

Nothing goes FTL.

Do you mean nothing that we know of?

What about tachyons? Like black holes, much of what we know/surmise about them is theory and conjecture based on other "solid" science.

If FTL was possible then the black hole would not suck it in, it would escape, the fact nothing does is further proof FTL is impossible.

I'm pretty sure the word "fact" has no business in that sentence.

I think I know what you mean though, just teasing you a little.

Snarl
Here are my questions about black holes. If a black hole is the remnant of a collapsing star, and that star was burning, and shedding mass (CMEs) ... didn't it already have enough mass to absorb light to begin with?

The issue isn't that something has enough mass, but has enough mass in a small enough region. Before the star collapsed, it was bigger!

Riffrafter

Nothing goes FTL.

Do you mean nothing that we know of?

What about tachyons? Like black holes, much of what we know/surmise about them is theory and conjecture based on other "solid" science.

No--nothing. Not a thing. There are no things which travel faster than light.

If faster than light travel were possible, it would radically affect the structures of special relativity in obviously detectable ways. It doesn't, so it's not allowed.

It's like asking "how do you know there's not an ocean just outside your house?" Well, because I looked. I see what's there, and it's not an ocean. It doesn't matter that there might be puddles outside after it rains, or a lake a few miles away. An ocean doesn't sneak up on you.

I just have to say,
I love black holes. They are very interesting.
Never let me down. Black holes are my favorite.

Phage
reply to post by new_here

 

Please give your take on what causes gravity. It's not fully understood, or at least subject to some debate... am I right? I'd be interested to know what you adhere to.

As far as I can tell gravity is a property of matter. As to what "causes" that property...no one knows and physicists would be the first tell you that. That doesn't mean that they don't know how it behaves and it doesn't behave anything like magnetism. At least not like any form of magnetism that has ever been seen.

edit on 9/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks! Do they think that spin and or revolutions (as in Earth both spinning and revolving around the Sun) are possibly part of the 'cause' or the result of gravity... or neither? (It seems like the Earth's velocity would propel it in a straight line, but for the Sun's gravitational pull, and this opposing force might result in the Earth spinning and revolving around our star.) Thank you for your patience!

reply to post by new_here

Neither the Earth's spin or its orbit have anything to do with what causes gravity.

Gravity does keep the Earth in its orbit but it does not have anything to do with its rotation. The gravity of the Sun keeps the Earth perpetually (for all intents and purposes) "falling" around the Sun.

The Earth's rotation is the result of momentum left over from the original formation of the Solar System. It is gradually slowing down though, due to the influence of the gravity of the Moon. The reason for this is a bit on the complicated side though. In essence, the Moon is "stealing" rotational energy from the Earth and converting it to orbital energy. That is why the Moon is slowing moving farther from the Earth.

Phage
reply to post by new_here

 

The Earth's rotation is the result of momentum left over from the original formation of the Solar System. It is gradually slowing down though, due to the influence of the gravity of the Moon. The reason for this is a bit on the complicated side though. In essence, the Moon is "stealing" rotational energy from the Earth and converting it to orbital energy. That is why the Moon is slowing moving farther from the Earth.

That is some fascinating information there! Sorry to deviate from the topic of Black Holes. Blame it on gravity. I was drawn to it, lol.

Thanks so much!